Medina v. Social Security, Commissioner of

Filing 23

ORDER Accepting and Adopting Magistrate Judge's 20 Report and Recommendation. Signed by District Judge Sean F. Cox. (SBur)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

Courtney Lynne Medina,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 15-11895
Honorable Sean F. Cox
Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub

Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
______________________________/
ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Courtney Lynne Medina (“Plaintiff”) brought this action seeking judicial review
of Defendant Commissioner of Social Security’s (“Defendant”) determination that she is not
entitled to social security benefits for her mental impairments under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Doc.
#1).
Sometime thereafter, Plaintiff and Defendant filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
(Doc. #14, Pl.’s Br. and Doc. #17, Def.’s Br.). All proceedings in this case were referred to
Magistrate Mona K. Majzoub pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (Doc. #3).
On July 7, 2016, Magistrate Judge Majzoub issued a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”), wherein she recommended that the Court DENY Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment, GRANT Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and REVERSE and REMAND
the decision of the Commissioner for an award of benefits. (Doc. #20, R&R at 1). Defendant
filed a timely objection to the July 7, 2016 R&R on July 21, 2016. (Doc. #21, Def.’s Obj.).

1

Plaintiff timely responded to Defendant’s objection on August 2, 2016. (Doc. #22, Pl.’s Resp.)
The Court finds Defendant’s objection to be without merit. The Court shall therefore
ACCEPT AND ADOPT the R&R, GRANT Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and
DENY Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), a party objecting to the recommended
disposition of a matter by a Magistrate Judge must file objections to the R&R within fourteen
(14) days after being served with a copy of the R&R. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Objections must
“(A) specify the part of the order, proposed findings, recommendations, or report to which a
person objects; and (B) state the basis for the objection.” E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d).
Objections are not “a second opportunity to present the argument already considered by
the Magistrate Judge.” Betancourt v. Ace Ins. Co. of Puerto Rico, 313 F. Supp. 2d 32, 34
(D.P.R. 2004). Moreover, the district court should not consider arguments that have not first
been presented to the magistrate judge. See Stonecrest Partners, LLC v. Bank of Hampton
Roads, 770 F. Supp. 2d 778, 785 (E.D.N.C. 2011).
“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition
that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the
recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge
with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
ANALYSIS
In her summary judgment motion, Plaintiff argued that this matter should be reversed for
an award of benefits under sentence four because: (1) the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”)

2

committed reversible error by failing to give “great and controlling weight” to Plaintiff’s treating
psychiatrist; (2) the ALJ failed to comply with the Remand order of this Court requiring the ALJ
to give controlling weight to the medical restrictions and opinions of the treating physician, or
give “good reasons” for rejecting that opinion; and (3) Plaintiff was, and remains, totally and
permanently disabled and is therefore entitled to an award of benefits under the Social Security
Act. (Pl.’s Br. at 1-2).
Defendant cross-motioned for summary judgment arguing that: (1) the ALJ sufficiently
addressed the medical opinions of Plaintiff’s treating physicians; and (2) that in the event that the
ALJ did err, remand for a new hearing would be the appropriate remedy since the standard set
forth in Kalmbach v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 409 Fed. App’x 852, 865 (6th Cir. 2011) was not met.
(Def.’s Br. at 21).
Magistrate Judge Majzoub recommended that the Court grant Plaintiff’s motion and deny
Defendant’s motion because she found that the ALJ had failed to offer sufficiently good reasons
when he discounted Plaintiff’s treating physician’s (Dr. Raval) opinion and assigned it little
weight. (R&R at 12). After considering the record, Magistrate Judge Mazjoub concluded that
the proper procedure upon remand was to reverse the decision and award benefits to Plaintiff.
(R&R at 16).
Defendant has lodged one objection to Magistrate Judge Majzoub’s July 7, 2016 R&R.
Namely, that remand for an award of benefits is not warranted. (Def.’s Obj. at 2). For the
reasons more fully developed below, the Court finds Defendant’s objection to be without merit.
Moreover, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis as to the challenged issue.
As an initial matter, the Court notes that Magistrate Judge Mazjoub correctly stated that

3

reversal for an award of benefits is appropriate “when ‘all essential factual issues have been
resolved and the record adequately establishes a plaintiff’s entitlement to benefits.’” (R&R at 1516) (quoting Faucher, v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 17 F.3d 171, 176 (6th Cir. 1994)).
Entitlement to benefits can be established if “‘the decision is clearly erroneous, proof of
disability is overwhelming, or proof of disability is strong and evidence to the contrary is
lacking.’” (R&R at 16) (quoting Mowery v. Heckler, 771 F.2d 966, 973 (6th Cir. 1985)).
Defendant’s objection asserts that:
Magistrate Judge Majzoub failed to point to proof of disability so strong as to
establish Plaintiff’s entitlement to benefits. Instead, by assessing the evidence as
she did, Magistrate Judge Majzoub, identified, at most, conflicting evidence that
the ALJ should be allowed to evaluate such that remand for further proceedings is
the more appropriate remedy.
(Def.’s Obj. at 3). In making this argument, however, Defendant appears to misconstrue the
Magistrate Judge’s R&R. The Magistrate Judge did not identify conflicting evidence. To the
contrary, Magistrate Judge Mazjoub found that “there are no countervailing or contradictory
medical opinions in the record to which the ALJ pointed in support of his almost wholesale
rejection of the treating physician’s opinions.” (R&R at 14) (citing Kalmbach, 409 Fed. App’x
at 862). It is worth noting that even Defendant fails to cite any evidence in the record, which
contradicts the Magistrate Judge’s findings.
Rather than point to a specific deficiency in the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning, Defendant
ignores the reasons underlying Magistrate Judge Mazjoub’s conclusions. Specifically, the
Magistrate Judge found that:
After considering Dr. Raval’s records and opinions, plaintiff’s own testimony
regarding her mental condition, together with additional record evidence of
hospitalizations and severe mental psychosis, the undersigned concludes that
there exists strong evidence that plaintiff’s combined impairments meet or exceed
4

a listed impairment under the Social Security regulations. As noted above, two
vocational experts have testified that accepting Dr. Raval’s limitations would
preclude all competitive work. And, there effectively is no competing medical
evidence, which makes any denial of benefits on remand in this case
unsupportable by substantial evidence. As such, the appropriate procedure upon
remand is to reverse the decision of the Commissioner and award benefits to the
plaintiff.
Id. at 16.
Defendant also argues that the Magistrate Judge fails to identify which listed impairment
is met under the regulations. This point is not persuasive. Defendant fails to cite authority for
the proposition that the Magistrate Judge must identify a listed impairment in order to conclude
that proof of disability is strong.1
As such, Defendant has not presented any argument that persuades this Court to reject
Magistrate Judge Mazjoub’s resolution of the challenged issue. For the reasons stated here and
the reasons outlined in the R&R, Plaintiff’s objection is overruled.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court shall ADOPT AND ACCEPT the July 7, 2016
R&R. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and Defendant’s
Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. The Court shall therefore REVERSE and
REMAND the decision of the Commissioner for an award of benefits.

1

It is also worth noting that, here, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff suffered from the
following severe impairments: depression; mood disorder; bipolar disorder; post-traumatic stress
syndrome; anxiety; borderline personality disorder; and oppositional defiant disorder. (R&R at
3) (citing Tr. 393). The ALJ consequently determined that Plaintiff was not disabled because
she was capable of performing a significant number of jobs in the national economy. Id. at 4
(citing Tr. 408). But, as Magistrate Judge Mazjoub pointed out, two vocational experts testified
that accepting Dr. Raval’s limitations would preclude all employment. In rejecting Dr. Raval’s
opinion, the ALJ failed to cite any conflicting evidence in the record. In light of this, proof of
disability is strong.
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
S/Sean F. Cox
Sean F. Cox
United States District Judge
Dated: August 16, 2016
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on
August 16, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/Shawna C. Burns
Case Manager

6